Children’s Dietary Exposure to Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons in Finland

Abstract

The dietary exposure of Finnish children to benzo[a]pyrene (BaP) and the sum of four EU marker polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAH4) was estimated. In total, 154 analyzed samples and the literature data of 82 foodstuffs were included in our estimations. Food consumption data were based on a cross-sectional DAGIS study, which concerned Finnish preschool children (3–6 years of age). The Bayesian statistical model was used to assess the PAH4 exposures from multiple food products taking into account individual variation in food consumption. The analyte concentrations below the limit of detection (LOD) or between LOD and the limit of quantification (LOQ) were treated as censored data in the model to achieve optimum concentration estimates. The modeled total dietary mean exposures to BaP and PAH4 sum were 1,400 and 8,100 pg/kg bw/day, respectively. The respective 97.5th percentiles of exposure were to BaP 2700 and PAH4 sum 14,000 pg/kg bw/day. Bread and smoked ham contributed the most to PAH exposure. The corresponding total margin of exposures were for BaP 482,000 and for PAH4, 42,000. Based on our results, exposure to PAHs from studied foods does not pose a health risk to Finnish children aged 3–6 years.

Keywords:

• PAH4
• dietary exposure
• children
• margin of exposure (MOE)

Acknowledgments

We are very grateful for the sampling performed by the municipal food control authorities and the inspection veterinarians of the Finnish Food Safety Authority, Evira. We thank Pasi Peltola for the help with the PAH analysis. The authors would also like to thank the preschools, the preschool personnel, and the parents for their participation in the DAGIS study, and the research staff in the Folkhälsan Research Center and at the University of Helsinki for their participation in the collection of the data.

Disclosure statement

Liisa Korkalo is a board member of TwoDads Ltd. Other authors declare that they have no competing interests. The funders had no role in the design of the study; in the collection, analyses, or interpretation of the data; in the writing of the manuscript, or in the decision to publish the results.